Am I the only one who isn't a fan of Tate?

I know Tate seems to be a pretty popular guy around here, but I guess I just had to ask if anybody else finds him to be a bit cocky/kinda douchey. No doubt he is a good football player, but I can't help but feel like if he were the starting QB at any other big ten school (even ones we traditionally don't have much animosity for like Northwestern) many of us would probably point out that he seems like a douchenozzle.

As a current student I've seen both Denard and Tate around the Union some (havent talked to either of them personally) and Denard is usually laughing about something and talking with regular students. Tate, on the other hand, seems to keep more to himself, keeping himself relatively separated from the random student body.

But more than that, and more than just a general sense of arrogance I see when he talks to the media, one specific thing sticks in my mind. A couple days after an article came up (I think it was on rivals but I'm not sure) praising Denard's strides as a QB in the spring game, Tate put the article up on his facebook "wall of shame" and added the comment "I was against the 1s he was against the 2s." Personally if Tate can't get excited for a teammate's success, even at the same position, then I find myself really not wanting to root against him.

Obviously as a UM fan/student I'll be rooting for Tate's success every time he touches the ball, but I can't help but feel a really strong hope that Denard somehow manages to win the starting job outright and Tate transfers in 2011 (when DG would be able to be a solid backup as a RS Freshman). Personally this is not a guy I want to have to cheer for and not a guy I want representing my school. Undoubtedly an extremely unpopular opinion here but I just wanted to see if literally anybody else on this board feels the same way.

Ricky Bobby? You can't just say no offense or with all do respect and have it be nice.

Sorry, the "no offense line" just reminded me of that. Anyway, it's a no-no because Brian didn't want people bickering about points and filling up board space with "Why am I getting negged" type comments. It goes back to a phrase that is currently on this board: "TAKE IT LIKE A MAN" and just let a few negs come in. The more you post asking why your getting negged is a pretty simple linear equation approximation:

neg_total ~= k * n ^ (sqrt(k)

where k equals the number of posts made and n equals the number of negs rewarded after one complaint about negs.

The reason this is sad is that it is not one of the stupidest comments that I've read on this board. That said, it is still incredibly dumb.

Maybe he votes based on issues of policy, rather than his opinion on who is more likable or who has a better personality. As opposed to making an opinion on whether he likes a collegiate QBs personality based on minimal anecdotal evidence after one year without ever even talking to one.

Maybe he votes based on issues of policy, rather than his opinion on who is more likable or who has a better personality.

I'll give you that as a possibility for his specific case, but to act as though perceived personality does not play a large role in politics for the majority of the public in any country is either willfully naive or just downright, as you put it, "incredibly dumb."

This is the reason why I feel bad for scholarship athletes. This kid isn't making a cent, and still has to put up with dipshits who do not know him making public posts on a message board read by thousands of his peers about how he's a douchebag. I wish "Communications" was as popular as football, so people who don't know you could make public internet posts about your personality.

...but I thought scholarship athletes effectively earn $30k to $40k annually in paid tuition as well as a top-notch education from a premier university.

If they can't stand the heat (and the competition), they should get out of the kitchen.

Team success is #1. Individual accolades should be secondary.

I like Tate a lot. Cool head. Lots of confidence. Decent touch. His only shortcoming is he slightly diminutive to be playing B10 football. I think of him as more of a MAC QB, but he is proving to be surprisingly effective against B10 opponents.

I know the football program is a huge profit center so this effectively absorbs the cost of tuition. Of course, they marginally shrink the number of students who can attend U of M, so I guess you could say they cost "normal" kids slots at the school.

I just know that I would have been thrilled to have been offered a full ride scholarship at a B10 school to play a sport I love. It would have been a tremendous honor, whether I saw the field much or not.

While perceived personalities obviously affect politics, your original statement suggested that it should, a thought that I found offensive and indicative of a lot of crap that is wrong with the world in general. That said, I clearly overreacted in my original response and for that I apologize.

Is there a difference between having an opinion, and posting my opinion of a 19-year old amateur athlete (formed with anecdotal evidence)on a message board frequented by thousands of his peers ans classmates?

He tried to walk past the line to get into a frat party the night of the Penn State game. the bouncer started to herd him back into the line when Tate said "dont you know who I am? I'm the f****ing quarterback of the football team!" and the bouncer said "put some poiints on the board and you can walk past the line" and sent him back on line. Tate and his friend left.

He actually seemed very comfortable with his place... After the game I asked who they all were on that team (all wearing official M gear, and huge) He said "Tight End, Tight End, O line, and I'm just a fat kicker"

I can't speak for anyone else and certainly you are entitled to your opinion but I would say I am a fan of his. The only reason for this is that he plays for UM and they are my team.

I also have never met the guy or even seen him in person, so Ihave no personal perspective from which to base my opinion.

Having said all this, I simply have been hoping that Denard wins the QB job this year purely because I really like the guy and want to see him on the field more. It is nothing negative toward Tate, I just would like to see Denard progress enough to win the job.

I should clarify that I only want him to win the job because I would be excited to see what he could do if he got the passing game down. He would be electric back there.

Though qbforce is straight up weird, a quarterback should be very confident. Maybe other teams don't like him, but he's OURS. Every fan of other Big 10 schools I've talked to hated Mike Hart, but can you say the same?

The players other teams/fan bases hate begrudgingly because they beat their team but simultaneously seem to be pretty fun people to be around.

The players other teams/fan bases love to hate because they beat their team and are cocky about it.

Both of those types of players have one thing in common. As long as that's the case, I could care less. I'd love for every player to be personable and friendly, but that will never happen. Just give me winners.

I'm one of very few of my friends who are much more excited about Denard than Tate. I think that Denard has the skill set/ability to be a top 5 QB in the league by his senior year, while I think Tate wont get any better physically, but hopefully he'll get better mentally.

I think the future at QB is Denard... but I'm going to support both guys because the present needs them both to succeed.

If Denard can continue to improve his passing, and plays in Big 10 games the way he played in the Spring game, he would be the true run/pass threat that will open up the defense.

but Gardner has the look of a future NFL QB....sort of Vince Young 2.0

Tate is a nice QB, and a very grittly competitor, but he doesnt have a rocket laser arm, he isnt a significant running threat, and he seems to get banged up a lot. He forced a number of passes in the Spring game, and was lucky a few werent picked.

Confidence and cockiness are two different things. You can have the guy who doesn't know if he can lead the team down the field to beat Notre Dame with 11 seconds left (no confidence, no cockiness), the guy who knows he can (confidence, no cockiness), or the guy who thinks he is entitled to his position and it doesn't matter if he leads the team down the field (confidence, cockiness). Which would you prefer?

while i've never had any interactions with tate personally, I've dropped enough eaves around him and heard enough stories that make me a much bigger denard fan. Sure, probably not all these stories are true, but a lot of people like to say unflattering things about tate, whereas they agree that denard is a nice guy.

say that. One of my friends works with the student-athletes. I was there talking to him during the spring game and his exact words were, "Tate is an asshole." He said it twice to make sure I got it. He also said that he's getting into a lot of trouble. Nothing major, but little bullshit knuckle head type stuff. Just telling you what I heard about him from a source that works closely to everyone.

We said the same thing about Rick Leach in the day. He was a damm good quarterback and won a ton or games. Was he a nice friendly guy? No. It would be nice if our QB was nice, kind and good. I'll settle for good.

OMG! Tate is so dark and mysterious, he just keeps to himself and his web page, and Denard is soooo cool and funny. I'm all, like, you know, confused about which one to like more!!! If only one of them would ask me to the dance, i would know how my heart feels. I think i saw Tate drive fast and has glittery skin and Denard ate some raw meat and howls a lot, i am soooo confused.

If you're that worried about it, just tell people you bought a Vlad Emilien jersey.

You'll have to explain away why Emilien's a bust, but that might be easier than explaining why you don't like a true sophomore QB who, to be honest, had a quite excellent true freshman year given the circumstances of the 2009 season.

I knew Henson (I was a TA and he was in one of my sections) and he was a nice guy, never gave me any kind of attitude. One time I ran into him when I was doing my laundry and he was hanging out with some other guys in my apartment complex, and he offered me a beer.

I don't care as much about fans perception of the player as much as the other players perception. It seemed that Mallet was not liked by a lot of the older players, and that was concerning to me. Tate seems (again only a perception from seeing him interact on the sideline and at spring practice) like he has the team on his side and they trust and back him. As long as he has the team's trust, he has mine.

Now if you are asking me who I am more excited about playing QB this fall, I really like Tate and have a number five maize shirt ready to go, but D-Rob seems pretty special and crazy dangerous on every play. I usually always go for the safe bet, but if I had a choice, I want the high stakes gamble with Denard.

I also wouldn't worry to much about how they interact with other students either. As someone mentioned, they are not pro's. From your description it sounds like Denard is just one of those personalities that can talk to anyone, and just kinda can own a room without trying. Tate sounds like he is just a little more reserved and doesn't always want the spotlight off the field. I remember hearing my freshman year that Drew Henson had a sign up list for girls to visit his dorm room. No one cares about these stories when you're winning. I say give the kids a break.

Was one of the most douchy people I've ever met. Also one of the ugliest people I've ever met.

That said, the "cockiness" displayed by a quarterback is necessary. Some call it Moxie. To a certain extent you need to have the "I'm the fucking man" mentality to succeed. There are multiple ways to know you're good and use it though. For example, Peyton Manning knows he's the man, and he works hard to stay on top. Tony Romo has been told he's the man, so he goes to Cabo. Just examples.

I think in general I like my dominant athletes who know they're dominant to also be humble about it and be good people off the field while they're at it. (See Graham, Brandon)

With Tate - he had a great start to his freshman year, and was The Man during October. He got hurt, Molk got hurt, the wheels came off, and he wasn't that sweet any more. I'm just hoping that he takes the pressure from Denard and others and uses it to improve himself and the team.

honest, the thing that really pissed me off was the osu game. He comes out, pumping the crowd up, doing a little clowning and before you know it..............Touch down osu. Not to mention the 50 picks he threw that game.

I want all the home field advantage I can get. Let's make the other team uncomfortable from the second warm ups start to the time they go back to the locker room. No need (or reason) to wait for something to happen.

Yeah, that Mike Hart guy was a real cocky asshole too. Did you like him?

I loved Mike Hart and I love Tate for the same reason. They both give their all for Michigan Football. Are they both a bit arrogant? Sure, even over the top with it at times. However, we call ourselves "The Leaders and Best." Isn't that a bit arrogant too? Anyone who bleeds for Michigan Football is okay in my book.

Calling out a kid like this is pretty unacceptable, at least in my mind. Players read this site, and cheerfully suggesting one of them transfer to another school serves no purpose. Nor does calling them out as assholes.

Sorry, but I've got to neg you for that. I'm trying to stay out of this since I got absolutely hammered the last time I started a thread on Tate but for you to compare Forcier and Hart is pretty unfair, IMO.

Hart was a proven beast on the field. He bought himself the right to say what he wanted. And really, what did he say during his career besides the "little brother" thing? When you go 4-0 against your in-state rival and do it impressively (on his part, anyway), you have the right to say that.

If Forcier can produce the way Hart did, then I couldn't care less what he has to say. Until then, I think it'd be in his best interest to keep a lid on it.

Hart was cocky from the start, not just his senior year. And he loved him because of his swagger and his performances. Also, Tate did a pretty good job this last fall for a true freshman. Compare the talent level on the team in 2009 to Hart's freshman year when he had Braylon, Avant, Breaston, and Henne to stretch a defense and ran behind Baas, Long, Lentz, Stenavich. Not taking anything away from Hart but considering the drop in talent, Tate did just fine except for some freshman QB mistakes.

Let me start out by saying that I root for Tate, and will continue to do so as long as he is wearing a winged helmet (unless he transfers to University of Delaware). I also think that this kid has a lot of potential because of his ability to create on the run and under pressure. That said . . .

I was also troubled by the Facebook thing. Yes, his dad runs the page, but if he played for a different team, we would never accept that excuse. I also didn't like the sort of douchy "I don't get nervous" comments when he was doing well. Confident (almost cocky) QBs are a good thing, but that did sort of seem a bit toolish.

A lot of these things could simply be the result of being 18/19 and having been raised by a father that is a bit, shall we say, crazy. I hope that during this upcoming year, he grows up and sheds some of these behaviors.

Although I think your take on Tate is probably short-sighted (and I think you would agree), I applaud you for sharing what you knew would be an unpopular opinion. We all formulate uninformed opinions about people we have brief, random, and secondary encounters with. We are evolutionarily programmed to do so, a tendency we often have to work against. Keep your mind open, we'll see how things play out this season. My guess is that Tate's true character will have plenty of opportunity to surface during this season.

To me Tate does seem unnecessarily cocky. For example, his oft-uttered "I don't get nervous" smacks of the immaturity of a 12-yr old more so than an 18-yr old (even if that is what you think, you don't need to go around chanting it. Plus, it is faulty - nervousness can have good impacts as well as bad). And some of his behavior on the sideline toward RR was childish and insubordinate. RR indicated this spring that Tate needed to do some maturing.

The OP brings up a valid topic. As for all of you negging him for having the balls to post an unpopular opinion, one he adequately prefaced as ill-informed, one he admitted could be faulty, you all should be fucking ashamed. Keep up the homogenization of MGoBlog, and keep attempting to make it a boring place.

This is an anonymous cheapshot at someone the OP has never met. Who cares if Tate is cocky? What does this topic add to anybody's understanding of or appreciation for Michigan football? The OP made no effort to connect Tate's perceived character flaws with his performance on the field, so this just amounts to a pointless exercise in public masturbation.

The OP made no effort to connect Tate's perceived character flaws with his performance on the field, so this just amounts to a pointless exercise in public masturbation.

First, discussions here have never been limited to on-field performance. Just drop that ill-informed argument. Second, this is not about Tate's on-field performance. This is about his character outside of performance, and how that impacts whether the OP wants to cheer for him. They are different topics. If you cant see the nuance, I don't know what to tell you.

I understand that the OP was not referencing on-field performance. That was my complaint. Sure, as a matter of fact, discussions here sometimes to regress to gossipy bullshit about players' off field behavior or attitudes. This thread is evidence of that. But these threads don't add anything of value to the discussions here. They're juvenile and pointless. I just wish people would take this shit to an ESPN forum.

If I remember correctly, the thread dealing with that in the spring clarified that the article was on the "wall of shame" because the reporter was ready to anoint Denard as the messiah after his performance in the spring game and in the process proceeded to act like Tate had already lost his starting spot. Tate/Tate's dad wasn't upset by Denard performing well, they were upset at the reporter's handling of it.

Were you a fan of Tate when he won the ND game?
How about after the diving TD against IU?

We have two very skilled QBs who really seem to genuinely root for each other even as they're competing. Leave your HS cafeteria drama out of this.

I will say that I think that Tate has the kind of personaility where if he was playing at a different Big Ten school he would be a guy that we'd all love to hate. That said, I'm very glad he's playing for us, cockiness and all.

I think this thread is stupid. I love Tate, but I don't care who our QB is because I just want to win. Having said that, when Tate runs around with the ball in one hand I could literally run on the field and strangle him.

Janeane Garofalo (Film Actors Guild): "As actors it is our responsibility to read the newspaper, and then say what we read on television like it's our opinion"

"As a current student I've seen both Denard and Tate around the Union some (havent talked to either of them personally) and Denard is usually laughing about something and talking with regular students. Tate, on the other hand, seems to keep more to himself, keeping himself relatively separated from the random student body."

Extrovert vs. introvert
Gregarious vs. shy (confidence athletically is not the same as confidence socially)
Does the "random student body" treat the two differently because one is the starter and the other isn't?

So we don't think it is fair that Tate reads all the Denard love, and feels frustrated that no one (in the press) really acknowledged that he was playing with the two offense against the one defense and vice versa, and he vents it out on his wall of shame???

I have no problem with it. Neither should Denard really.

What if the guy has been hounded, gawked at, and facebook stalked by wide eyed fans for the last three or four years, and his way of dealing with it is to keep to a closer circle of trusted freinds???

I mean really, come on. Granted, anecdotally is has been alluded to that his early success went to his head, and maybe he isn't towing the line as much as he should have. Still, he's all of 19, and is in an incredibly challenging situation (how to be somewhat normal in a fishbowl, and how to make the transition from a lifetime of a father overseeing most aspects of your life to being successful and managing your own life).

There are some great guys on this team, who are clearly extroverts and fun to be around: funny dog stories, rap videos, and smiles, etc. Just because someone keeps to themself, doesn't mean they're not a great guy.

I say unless Tate walks up to you at the Union and says "bow down lowly commoner", maybe you cut him a break.

... i'm surprised by the negative reaction to the OP. As if you haven't insulted opposing 19-year-old amateur athletes? There is a certain emu and OSU QB who would beg to differ.

While I agree that we should always root for him because he is on our team, I can say that I don't like the way he interacts with the media and he does come off as insincere. Strike it up to immaturity, but it doesn't mean I have to like it. The OP should be entitled to his opinion without people making hypocritical statements about how we shouldn’t negatively speak of “unpaid” athletes. If you don’t think we should insult unpaid athletes, hold to that rule for all teams not just UM. If you think we shouldn’t be critical of our own team than you should just state you are circling the wagons and are refusing to listen to alternative viewpoints.

Do Something. If it works, do more of it. If it doesn't, do something else.

guh

The public isn't entitled to know which athletes are genuinely good people, which are douches, and which are in between. Sometimes you get to learn a bit about their real personalities, but I don't think there has ever in history been a guy who you can judge one way or another after one year in the public spotlight.

Things you might not choose in a friend are fine qualities for an athlete on a team you root for. As mentioned above, Hart was a loudmouth with a Napolean complex, but when he held a football, he fought for every yard as of he didn't know the difference between 36 inches and salvation, and in doing so earned our undying admiration.

Forcier stood for an entire season opposite dozens of future NFL defensemen, with only Ortmann, Schilling, Moosman, Huyge and Dorrestein between him and them. Before his shoulder exploded, Forcier's gutsy play won the Notre Dame game, sparked a thrilling comeback win against Indiana, and tied an MSU game that shouldn't have been close (unless offsides suddenly became a penalty in the Big Ten...which...if they haven't they really should make offsides a penalty in the Big Ten, even if it would ruin Dantonio's career).

For that, he has my respect.

Unless he starts dating Misopogal's sister or something, that's really all I need to root for him.

I will be interested to see how Tate handles adversity this season. And I'm not talking on the field. Denard has made some significant gains since 2009 and he has a higher ceiling than Tate in terms of potential, IMO.

I think the two will split a lot of playing time early, and it is very possible that Denard wins the job outright.

Now, should this happen, I will be curious to see how Tate handles himself off the field. Will he complain about it or will he continue to work hard and support Denard?

Wow, the season really needs to get here. These threads are getting ridiculous. Maybe we can talk about actual football soon? Probably not, we're just going to cluck like a circle of chickens for a few months.

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is never get involved in a land war in Asia - but only slightly less well-known is this: Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line!

how about eliot mealer? that guys the biggest jerk. he is so selfish to come back after a tragedy and guilt everyone into giving him attention. and barwis, that fraud. i cant believe he would donate his own time to help out someone recovering from a spinal injury. some people.

There are some things that should not be used in a flame war. Call up this story if you simply want to give an example of the character of the Mealers, coaches, and our athletic department. But don't use it in a flame war - it only cheapens it.

close, but Haikus are usually about nature. Nice try though, i'll still give you a +1 for using poetry.

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is never get involved in a land war in Asia - but only slightly less well-known is this: Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line!

I remember seeing John Navarre (!) a couple of times on campus and, based on my completely uneducated eye, he looked pretty "cocky", what with his height and athletic ability and his name in the UM record books. I knew right then, staring at him silently while he passed, that he was a total d-bag who was a horrible teammate and who never should be allowed to wear a UM jersey, especially not one worn by suck humble characters as Desmond, Woodson, and Hart.

/s

Come on! This is big-time college football, and Tate Forcier is the presumptive favorite to be the starting QB at UM. I fully expect him to be a bit cocky, and given his size and the number of times people have doubted him, about the only chance he has to survive and succeed is to go out and believe that he is the best player on the field, in the Union, in the classroom, etc. The minute he stops believing that he is the best QB at UM is the day he might as well pack up his bag and sit on the bench.

And while I am all for Denard becoming the starting QB if he earns it on the field, let's look at this situation from Tate's perspective. Last year, as a true freshman, he took a pretty mediocre offense into one of the better ones in the conference, put together some transcedent performances, and played injured for most of the 2nd half of the season. Along the way, he was dissected and analyzed by all types of pundits, from ESPN personalities to the random MGoPoster. His coach, perhaps as motiviation, pointed out to the press when he succeeded and when he failed. He also had to contend with a new living situation, thousands of miles from home, in an academically-rigorous school.

All the while, he didn't complain to the press, he didn't say anything stupid along the lines of "everyone murders", and he kept his nose out of trouble (at least headline-generating trouble).

And for that, as soon as Denard showed some flashes of brilliance in summer workouts and the spring game, everyone annointed Denard the heir apparent and threw Tate behind both him and uber-recruit Gardner. People said he was immature, that he couldn't cut it in this system, that maybe he should transfer somewhere else. The local press treated him as an afterthought, and random bloggers started calling him an ass because he is quiet and isn't laughing all the time (and let's see how Denard acts after the fans skewer him for throwing 3 picks or fumbles twice in a game).

So yeah, taking all of this into account, I don't blame him for being a bit down, for being annoyed that he played against the #1 defense with the #2 offense while Denard received heaps of praise for his ability to carve up walk-ons. Is it a bit immature to post it on Facebook? Sure, but then again, show me a mature 19-year-old's Facebook page and I'll show a potential sting operation by Chris Hanson.

People don't freak out here if you question Tate because we have some crazy man-crush on him (okay, some of us do) provided you supply some tangible, coherent points behind your criticism. Questioning the kid's heart because he didn't shake everyone's hand as he walked across campus or struggles to adjust to constant criticism gives you absolutely no leg to stand on.

In terms of football maturity: injury dramatics, holding that ball out there, taking off and scrambling too soon (even before protection breaks down).

But he's a great player, and he'll be even better when realizes that working hard with his teammates and listening to his coaches is what's best for him right now.

Just needs to realize: there will be enough drama when he wins a National Championship for Michigan. Need only ask his dad

Edit: remember he was also gracious re. Denard's PT last year "you can't keep a talent like that off the field." We learned a lot about Denard in terms of not giving up when Tate took over. We'll learn a lot more about them both this year. I'm optimistic

If this thread gets jumpbalya banned than it's the best tread ever. If it doesn't well at least you got to get some shit off your chest. Should Tate read this thread and have tears in his eyes, I will never be able to forgive you MgoDC.

I think people are way over reacting here. This guy is entitled to his opinion first of all. Everyone here keeps saying, "well as long as he wins I don't care." Well, this guy is saying he does care and he is allowed to think so.

Also, I think it is a valid topic to say hey, i don't really like player x, what does this rather large and representative group of michigan fans think about him. What is wrong with that?

I think he is perfectly entitled to not like Tate and to wonder what other peoples feelings are on him. To neg bang him and say that this topic and his opinion are dumb is imo...dumb.

For the record, I think Tate does come off as immature and a bit douchy, but you can put me in the camp of people who say as long as he wins I don't care. I am not saying he is that way, I am just saying he comes off that way and if he were on another team, I would make fun of my friends who were fans of said team

I've been called the songbird of my generation, by those who have heard me. THAT GOOD

If Tate wins games and steers clear of the law or NCAA then I don't care what kind of a person he is.

If Tate loses games and sucks or gets arrested or busted by the NCAA then I don't care what kind of a person he is.

I guess I just don't care. Partially, because I will never know Tate or talk to Tate so I have no way to judge his personality. But also because Tate is just a football player to me so I will tend to judge him on how he plays football.

you take some potatos, hopefully from IDAHO, and you cook em and thrown in some musturd and mayo and carrots and celery and blueberries and onions and a spoon of sassafrass. mix it all up real good like and serve at 4000 degrees centegrade.